JUDGMENT
2000 (1) SCR 27
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J.

Leave granted.

Though the appellants succeeded in the High Court their grievance still
persists as they are not out of woods now. Appellants approached the High
Court to quash the charge framed against them by a Metropolitan Magistrate.
The High Court quashed it, but directed the Magistrate to consider again
whether the same charges could be framed against appel-lants afresh.

We heard learned counsel for the appellants, but we did not find it
necessary to hear the sole respondent (State of West Bengal) as this appeal
can be disposed of even without the aid of such arguments.

On the basis of a complaint lodged with the Police Station, Burra Bazar
(Calcutta) an investigation was conducted by the police and the charge
sheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against
appellants and some other persons for offences under Sections 454, 380 and
120B of the Indian penal Code, The Magistrate issued process to the accused
and after hearing them a charge was framed against them for the said
offences. While framing the charge the Magistrate had as per order dated
63.1999, dismissed the petition filed by the accused for dis-charging them.
Appellants thereafter moved the High Court for quashing the charge.

The Metropolitan Magistrate who framed the charge opted to write a short
order presumably for dismissing the petition Filed by the appellants for
discharging them. The Magistrate stated in the order thus ;

The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the four
accused persons after completion of the investigation under Sections 454,
380, 120B I.P.C. Hence prima facie the case is established against the
accused persons under those Sections. There is nothing on behalf of the
accused persons save and except a petition."

A learned Single Judge of the High Court who set aside the aforesaid order
remarked that it was not discernible from the order of the Magistrate that
he had taken into consideration the charge-sheet and the other papers
submitted therewith for satisfying himself as to whether there is a prima
fade case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. This is
what the learned Single Judge observed :

"It is true that the language in which the impugned order is passed is not
happy one. That I am not sure whether the learned Magistrate applied his
mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and took the pain to
satisfy himself from the materials dis-closed by the charge sheet and other
papers submitted therewith as to whether a prima facie case was made out
against the accused persons for framing charges under the aforesaid penal
provisions."

After observing thus learned Single Judge expressed his helplessness in
supporting the order framing charges against the appellants. The
Metropolitan Magistrate was thereupon directed to peruse the charge-sheet
along with other papers submitted to him and satisfy himself again as to
the existence of a prima fade case against the accused. The further
directions given by the learned Single Judge reads thus :

"If he decides to frame charge upon such satisfaction based on perusal of
the charge-sheet and other papers submitted therewith, the learned
Magistrate must record the fact of such perusal and his satisfaction, only
then he shall proceed to frame the charge. If on the other hand upon
perusal of the aforesaid documents the learned Magistrate finds that the
papers do not disclose my prima fade case against the petitioner for
framing charges, it shall be open to him to discharge the petitioners from
the case."

We wish to point out that if the trial court decides to frame a charge
there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the
reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie
order that the trial judge has formed the opinion, upon consideration of
the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence
concerned. Chapter XIX deals with provisions for trial of warrant cases
instituted on police report. Section 239 reads thus :

"239. When accused shall be discharged. - (1) If, upon considering the
police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making
such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary
and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being
heard, the Magistrate con-siders the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so
doing." The said Section shows that the Magistrate is obliged to record his
reasons if he decides to discharge the accused. The next section (Section

240) reads thus :

"240, Framing of charge - (1) If, upon such consideration, examina-tion, if
any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this
Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his
opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he
shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to
be tried."

It is pertinent to note that this section required a Magistrate to record
his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement if
he forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused
had committed the offence which he is competent to try. In such a situation
he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused.

Even in cases instituted otherwise than on police report the Magistrate is
required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge
the accused. This is clear from Section 245. As per first sub-section of
Section 245, if a magistrate, after taking all the evidence considers that
no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would
warrant his conviction, he shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section
(2) the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any previous
stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Under both
sub-sections he is obliged to record his reasons for doing so. In this
context it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a court of
session, the judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to
discharge the accused. (vide Section 227 of the Code). But if he is to
frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why
he framed the charge.

If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order
showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened
trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has
reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the the court procedures
and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays.
If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely
because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced
progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We
are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges
running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has
been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite
unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing
process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over
to next stage in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders
rejecting or granting bail are passed, the Court should avoid expressing
one way or other on contentious issues, except in cases such as those
falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.

In the present case as the Metropolitan Magistrate has chosen to frame the
charge, the High Court, when moved by the accused for quash-ment of the
charge, could have re-examined the records to consider whether the charge
framed was sustainable or not. If the High Court decides to quash the
charge it is open to the High Court to record the reasons thereof. The
present order of the High Court is one of setting aside the charge without
stating any reason. But the direction to the Magistrate to consider the
materials once again and then to frame a charge for the same offence (if
the Magistrate reaches the opinion that there is ground for presuming the
commission of offence) is simply to repeat what the Metropolitan Magistrate
had done once at the first instance. To ask him to do the same thing over
again is adding an unnecessary extra work on the trial court. Be that as it
may, the State has not challenged the order of the High Court. Hence we are
not in a position to set aside the impugned order of the High Court. We
leave the order as such by making the aforestated observations. We leave it
to the Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise his functions under Section 239
or 240 of the Code as he deems Fa in the light of the observations made
above.